I think the article did a fine job of explaining, in brief, what protect means (And thank you DanielB for the link)
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Protect means to preserve the legacy of the works.

People say, "you can always read the book," but that misses the point of the many people who have loved a work, as it was written, and desire to see that work faithfully visualized for larger masses. If the work is in any way misrepresented, the second hand telling can stick in the mind with a host of inaccuracies. And, ironically, the more sucessful an adaptation is, the more likelihood there is for the original work to all but become lost in it.

Consider L.Baum and fans of his original book. What if Baum was insistent about there having been four witches in Oz? What of all the people who loved Quadling Country, and The Witch of The North, and the other details changed or omitted from the 1939 classic? Baum's ideal, and that of the fans of his writing, might have been for there to one day be a film in which those aspects were presented (well . . . The Wiz does have the four witches), so that a larger audience could see and come to know them. . . but for millions of people Oz only ever had Three Witches, and there were no Quadlings in Oz. The movie overtook the books. Certainly you can still buy a copy of the book. . . but for most people, the films have become the cannon.

My girlfriend recently recounted a conversation to me, in which a friend of hers who was a fan of the movies, but not steeped in the book lore, attempted to argue with her about Gandalf's nature. She was explaining to the friend that Gandalf was actually a Holy Spirit sent in a human guise to aid the free people and creatures of the world. The friend refuted this. "No he wasn't. Not originally. He became a Holy Spirit after he fought The Balrog, but he wasn't one originally," was the friend's assertion.

Things like that happen all the time, and that is doubtless what Christopher wants to protect against, though I fear it is a loosing battle. They say that a lie is half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. So to, the most popular version of a story is usually the one that the general populace refferences for the facts concerning a story. Alterations in a triumphant film truly can alter and degrade the facts of a tale. Because of popularized film versions, there are (and will continue to be for years to come) people who will fervently argue that Oz only had one good witch, and that was Glinda from The North (she is actually The Witch of The South), and that Elrond's daughter helped rescue Frodo from The Nazgul. "Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Of course Martin and Rowling etc. have a different attitude.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

They are living authors who actually have a MAJOR say in the way their works are being translated. HBO may make some changes to Martin's work so that the audience doesn't become so furious as to tar and feather both them and Martin (scaling back on some of his less requsite killings of fan favourites perhaps), but they are not going to play fast and loose with huge sections of his work on his watch.

Peter et al, by contrast, made clear early on that they were not interested in having an overseer.

In Reply To

Maybe not easily...but i would certainly to warm up to it and be as collaborative and helpfull and supportive as i could...George rr martin's attitude or alan moores is very different...i know its different situations, but i prefer their attitudes towards adaptations of their works than CTolkiens..

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Eh, they wouldn't of even had the conversation if it weren't for the movie
[In reply to]

Can't Post

In the glass half full camp, we could say they wouldn't be having the opportunity to argue about Gandalf's nature if it weren't for the exposure of the material by the adaptation. So now, that person has a chance (if they're so inclined) to learn more about the Maia. It could even be said that a casual reader (like myself) wouldn't know anything about the Maia, since they wouldn't wade through the Silmarillion. Now, that person knows about both, because of the movie adaptation. King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

the stance of certain people on the production who frequently assert they are improving Tolkien or heavily imply that they know better will not have done anything to encourage a positive reaction from CT. Phillipa Boyens in particular rather gives the impression that they improved Tolkien's work and, to defend that, uses a knowledge of the books which is simply innaccurate. For instance, she said that Faramir needed to be changed because he robbed the ring of all credibility and that the version in the films was an improvement. What she doesn;t understand that, Faramir in the books, would have worked wondefully in the film for what they wanted to do with the Ring because he doesn't actually know what it is. So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.

Now that you have been shown the source, I'd be interested in how that changes your thinking. It should, because your belief was based upon the absence of such enmity. For if it does not, it would contradict any need to request the source.

Well, i think the amount of omissions and changes done already, are enough to infuriate many fans of a song of ice and fire...although i agree with most of them.

I am not familiar with rowlings situation...from what i understood, she didnt have any veto power or an overseer quality at all after she sold the rights...i may be wrong...and frankly, if i were rowling and had veto power i wd never have allowed that final scene in book 5 to never appear on screen...so i always got the feeling that she just sold the rights ...

As to martin, he doesnt have any veto power, any say in the matter..the creators are the deciders, he has more of a consultant quality, they confide in him, check with him, show him the scripts and ask for comments, but if they decide to bring the aliens down to Westeros they can! and hes powerless to stop them...I think, ultimately, he trusts them to do a good job...

So, at least with martin i believe i know a little of his position and unless iam mistaken, he doenst have a Major say in the way their works are being translated...

Did peter make that clear? I dont remember that...i wish CTolkien simply had sat down with them for lunch so he could get to know them and what they wnated to do ....he didnt did he?

I'm sure I read that CT hasn't even seen the films. So to completely dismiss them as "action films for 15 year old's" is somewhat presumptuous considering they're far from it and especially given the fact that LOTR is and TH are books for adolescents.

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead. "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

There are differences, however, with leaving things out, or even adding things in, versus entirely changing an event. People generally accept that certain scenes from the book might have been left out of the film,. Indeed, the expect it. Additions can often be palated as well. But when the book says one thing happened in a certain way, and the movie dares say the exact opposite, or to show the same events but with entirely different results and scene actors, that is where the real conflicts arise.

In Reply To

I don't think it's in any way the job of a film adaptations to ensure there are no misconceptions about the original text. A documentary possibly but not a film of this nature.

That said I don't know how many people are out there who don't accept the statement that something might be different in the book, without having read it!

LR

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I can understand why Christopher wouldn't agree to a meeting.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Its the political optics. Just as Jackson's reasons for wanting to "involve" Christopher et al had very little to do with wanting any oversight from them, just the legitimacy that conferring with them could bestow. Doubtless, Christopher desired to deny any possibility of seeming to bestow that legitimacy/approval. "Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead.

Why is it rude? The TE owe PJ nothing. As Tolkien himself sold the film rights a long time ago then there is no reason for them to be involved if they don't wish to be. Your post sort of suggests that the TE ought to have been involved simply because PJ directed brain dead which isn't the case. We are not just talking about a book/books that have been turned into a series of films. We are talking about the life's work of his Father and CT, as head of the TE, has every right to refuse to be involved with the films if, in his view, they did not have the necessary respect for the source material. That's his choice. So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.

The point of the post was to discuss what "HATE" meant. Does he hate the movies because they weren't good? Does he hate them because he doesn't want films made period? My point is as a writer, an unsuccessful writer at this point, I would DIE for an adaption. As a spoiled success, TE is acting as if they don't need it. The fans demand it.

The pure book fans that do not want the films can continue to cherish the books solely. I just had wished that TE would have supported the cause, especially since they would have profited from it. Whether the films are good or not is not the case.

Was it supported by them? Tolkien himself, sold the rights when he was alive. Tolkien himself changed his own book, The Hobbit, to improve it and relate it to the LOTR. We saw Lucas do this with Star Wars, for better or for worse. Can you imagine if JRR did not change the Hobbit to better match LOTR and another writer changed it for him after his death? The purists would have went crazy.

Artists are always trying to perfect. As an artist ( I consider myself one, whether good or not) I will also try to improve my own work. And if I am lucky enough to create a world worth revisiting over and over, or expanding for that matter, good for me and my fans. And if I decide to offer that world to others to a different media, I would expect change. I also would expect other ideas on improvement and what ifs. If the other media destroys the spirit of the work, so be it, I sold the rights. I live or die with it.

There is a point in time where Middle Earth becomes the fan's world more than the creator's world. The creator will always own it but the fan's will let it live on. No fans, no work. Sometimes you need to give the people what they want. Once these films are done, I would agree that TE can rest for many years to come without giving anyone rights. That is fair. CT should appreciate his father's work he created and the world he has opened in the sense that it has become far greater a world than he could have imagined, and that is a blessing. Maybe he is being far more protective than even JRR would have been. But we do not know that and I appreciate CT and what he has provided to us as fans at this point, at least, whatever JRR hasn't already provided to us. I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!

Was it supported by them? Tolkien himself, sold the rights when he was alive. Tolkien himself changed his own book, The Hobbit, to improve it and relate it to the LOTR. We saw Lucas do this with Star Wars, for better or for worse. Can you imagine if JRR did not change the Hobbit to better match LOTR and another writer changed it for him after his death? The purists would have went crazy.

Except that's not really the same thing is it. Tolkien himself revised the Hobbit to make it more consistent with LOTR, chiefly the Riddles in the Dark chapter. But, and I shall have to stick to LOTR till I have seen the Hobbit, PJ didn't do that. He changed things to make the books work on screen but, went too far in some cases. Tolkien altered the original material to make it compatible with the LOTR. PJ, in certain cases, ignored the source material. So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.

I'm not sure I am being entirely flippant either. Stories are robust things and don't, in my view, need protecting or preserving or anything of the sort. I would argue that Tolkien wrote in a similar vein about other people's stories (though I do doubt he viewed his own work in quite the same way).

I love the idea of lots of people discussing the stories, full of different views, misconceptions and different readings. And the more different views, and ideas and takes we get to see and hear the better.

...and all the TE have done ever since is complain about it (although presumably they haven't complained about the millions of $$$ the films have brought in to fill the TE's coffers right?). It just seems a tad hypocritical to so publicly berate an excellent series of films that have increased Tolkien's works popularity 100x fold and guaranteed the TE's financial security for generations to come. If CT hates the films so much then why doesn't he stick to his convictions and just give away all the money he's made of the back of them? Or go even further and publicly criticise his father for selling the rights in the first place?

You can't blame fans of Tolkien's work (like PJ and co) for attempting to adapt his work if they can, and as far as I know there wasn't nearly as much criticism towards the 70's animated versions. "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

LOTR is not a book for Adolescents. Neither is The Hobbit, per se, but from a different angle
[In reply to]

Can't Post

The Hobbit is a children's tale. The Lord of The Rings is VERY mature in its themes. But the sort of mature that many adults will never fully appreciate, and that some teens already do. Much of LOTR deals with change and loss, really. Just because it is High School reading doesn't mean it was written with those students in mind. Catcher In The Rye, Hamlet, The House of The Spirits and As I Lay Dying are all high school reading as well, but they were not written specifically for a teen audience.

In Reply To

I'm sure I read that CT hasn't even seen the films. So to completely dismiss them as "action films for 15 year old's" is somewhat presumptuous considering they're far from it and especially given the fact that LOTR is and TH are books for adolescents.

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I understand your meaning, and there is some truth in it. But for everyone who has the benefit of being enlightened by one better informed in the faith there are a score of others who will plod on mired in the darkness of heresy! lolol

In Reply To

In the glass half full camp, we could say they wouldn't be having the opportunity to argue about Gandalf's nature if it weren't for the exposure of the material by the adaptation. So now, that person has a chance (if they're so inclined) to learn more about the Maia. It could even be said that a casual reader (like myself) wouldn't know anything about the Maia, since they wouldn't wade through the Silmarillion. Now, that person knows about both, because of the movie adaptation.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

1. All the Tolkien Estate have done is give their views when asked for them. It isn't like they've come out and publicly tried to stir up a boycott or anything. Compared to other authors, they have been very restrained and simply given their views on the movies. Some members of the TE like the movies and have said so. Others don't and have also said so. They haven't "done nothing but complain" at all.

2. Although the movies have increased the popularity of the books, I highly doubt the Estate is in anyway dependent on the films for financial security. Believe it or not, Tolkien's books particularly LOTR and TH were extremely popular before the films.3. If CT hates the films so much then why doesn't he stick to his convictions and just give away all the money he's made of the back of them? Umm, maybe because it's not his to give away but the TE's?4. Actually, the 70s version of the films did get some quite heavy flack, it's just that there wasn't the internet and other such things so it meant it wasn't as wide spread as quickly. Now people can post on the net in a matter of minutes.So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.

Well there is different. . . and then there is plain wrong.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

One can have different views on Elrond's attitude towards Aragorn that are equally justifiable. One cannot have equally valid views on whether or not The Witch King broke Gandalf's staff. He did not, no matter what is proposed in EE Rotk. That is not a different understaning of events. It is a patently false one.

In Reply To

I'm not sure I am being entirely flippant either. Stories are robust things and don't, in my view, need protecting or preserving or anything of the sort. I would argue that Tolkien wrote in a similar vein about other people's stories (though I do doubt he viewed his own work in quite the same way).

I love the idea of lots of people discussing the stories, full of different views, misconceptions and different readings. And the more different views, and ideas and takes we get to see and hear the better.

LR

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Spaldron: Tolkien sold the rights years ago and all the TE have done ever since is complain about it (although presumably they haven't complained about the millions of $$$ the films have brought in to fill the TE's coffers right?).

Laughable. What they complained about was *not* receiving those funds. This statement appears ignorant of more recent news. Would it change your thinking to know that the Tolkien Estate is reported to have received nothing from The Lord of the Rings films until the studio was forced by legal action to pay the 7.5% (I think) share only recently after how many years? Your post relies entirely that this is false.

Now, the other huge assumption is about what the Tolkien Estate does, or will do, with the money. What is your source for that? How do you know they *didn't* (or *will*) do something benevolent with those funds the studios tried to rob from them?

I'm not one to defend (or not) the Tolkien Estate. I have my gripes. But anything that misrepresents the truth with huge assumptions without supporting facts undermines any point of view we would attempt to pursue.

One isn't "true" and the other "false". One is original, to be sure, but both are fiction.

But that's rather beside the point. A film is there to tell a story in as engaging, entertaining and successful way as possible. It won't all be successful or universally liked but that's its job. Not to act as a reference book.

It bothers me no more than the thought someone is still reading a 1st edition hobbit.

- and, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask the forum what it actually was that pJ said about their approach to the Tolkien Estate? I mean, exactly.

I vaguely recall pJ's comments on the dvd and I don't get the impression that there was any case of the Estate snubbing the film-makers, or of not wishing them luck. Saying 'no' to a request is not a snub, nor bad-mannered.

Anyone can approach the estate with a request. Sometimes the answer is yes; sometimes no. That seems fair and reasonable to me. I have the advantage of having seen a typical example of the request process. Michael Drout approached the Estate asking permission to include unpublished material from the Tolkien holdings at the Bodleian Library in his doctoral dissertation. Drout included the correspondence in his dissertation itself, as an appendix. (I have a copy). The letters between Drout and the estate's solicitors are professional and business-like, and the one from the solicitors which tells Drout that their clients have granted his requests also passes on the family's best wishes in his studies.

I'd like to make a few general remarks if I may, based on other comments in this thread. Christopher seems quite open to requests, in my opinion. He gave a great deal of help to the makers of the BBC radio serial back in 1981. He made tapes for them, to help with pronounciation. The BBC made typescripts of the tapes available to members of the Tolkien Society; I still have mine.

On the subject of young Royd - yes, he is a nice bloke. But then, all the members of the Tolkien family I've met are nice.